Well if you're dumb enough to get caught then it sucks to be you. Also these companies won't do much because the second people start giving them bad rep they will back off as it's bad for business. Also I love my ISP as they don't like reporting people or taking measures against them.
My point is that they don't. The mainstream record labels do not. They don't sign up talented artists but ones that are the most appealling for the masses. Most people don't have the drive, energy or interest to scour the internet for new music. They accept whatever is popular (i.e: played to them from the radio or television shows). This ultimately results in what can only be objectively labelled as poor mass-produced and watered down accessible music dominating the airwaves. Though of course, as I said earlier this is starting to decline with the onset of the internet making independent and unknown music a mere google away. This alone is what is really cutting into the industry's profits as their market can hardly be described as mass piracy advocates or abusers.
I never said it was the artists task. Or even the record labels. Or even a "cultural programmer". It's no-one's task. It is a cultural problem (if you view it that way). The same is true of movies and television shows (thought not quite the same way). I was just saying that companies created that climate to happen.Tastes are supposed to, and can be, educated. And it isn't artists' task to educate people in order to like their music.
No, but that is because they existed in a time prior to the internet where resources for music were physical.It's cultural programmers' task. Artists can't strive without companies, just like companies can't strive without artists. You would never ever hear about bands like The Beatles or Queen if they didn't have good companies / managers covering their backs
Last edited by mmoce69e574eb3; 2012-11-27 at 03:56 AM.
Lol, goodluck finding one that doesn't follow that rule. Will be really easy finding another ISP, especially since in most cities there are only a couple such companies or, more probable, a monopoly of one.
In my country, one of the major cable TV providers decided out of the blue to remove the Discovery channels from the service. They didn't notify the clients in any way prior to doing this, inspite of the clients having specific contracts which include these channels. Before that, they also removed a country-local TV network because that TV station was against the current president and the TV cable company's owner happened to be a fan of the president. What, the customers don't like it ?! They're free cancel their subscruption...oh wait, there is no other TV cable provider in most areas of the country. Tough luck, people. Gotta love Capitalism.
Virgin Media throttle in the UK and if you root around in the t's and c's they can tell exactly what you are doing. If mass p2p usage they'll know. If mass YouTube they know its legit. This is a slippery slope but something Hollywood has been pursuing for years. They cannot protect their own media from piracy so encourage (backhand) ISPs to stop it at source. The Internet is too big to police, to many users to monitor. If you come close to top 100 in p2p usage they might come after you but 9/10 you'll be behind a proxy and there is no evidence to suggest you are pirating just using lots. It's cat and mouse, cats getting meaner but still can't catch that mouse, but he's coming.
WHEN I POST IN CAPS CURSE SPEAK FOR ALL PALADINS AND REFRAIN FROM PUNCTUATION EXCEPT AT THE END OF MY SENTENCE WHERE I USE EXTRA YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH MY LOGIC!!!!!!!
I don't think that it is either fair or legal. Internet activity is a form of communication. Private communication. And everyone is entitled to it. Just as the post office cannot open my letters so an internet provider should not have the right to monitor my internet activity. I cannot even fathom what kind of person would not understand such a simple concept as privacy. I don't care if some people are illegaly downloading content from the internet. Nothing, absolutely nothing, gives the right to an internet provider to invade my privacy.
The only people who can take a look are the authorities, and even they should have to have an extremely important reason to do so, such as a valid suspicion of child pornography distribution.
And there are no copyrights on the internet. The concept just doesn't exist in a digital world where everyone can have his own place to be. A movie can have all the copyright warnings its distributors want on the official content, but I doubt any pirate carries over those warnings to a pirated movie. And online copyright course?! Who gives the right to an american company to lecture me, a european, on what I can do with my internet activity? Give me a break. By that reasoning there should be a telephone conversation copyright course as well. And of course a letter-writing copyright course. We can't forget the way of communication that predates the previous two! And how awesome and rational it would be if someone was placed under arrest for writing the lyrics of a favourite song of his in a text message?! This is ridiculous. It doesn't stand to reasonable thinking. Not even a bit. That is why companies fight so hard to create such a concept. They have the money, the means, and the time. And they rely on people's inattentiveness and blind following to keep pushing for such things.
If movie/music/whatever companies want to increase their sales, they can try to release products that are not shit to begin with. I know I would never pirate an album from my favourite music band unless I was completely broke, broke as in not have money to pay even basic bills. That is because I love their music. When a company floods a market with shitty musical albums they have it coming to them. Teach people to not care much about art, and they will act accordingly. They turned albums in streamlined products, and they are trying to sell them continuously and en masse, like laundry detergent, no wonder people choose the free method. Unless they stop trying to milk things and decide to focus on quality this will continue to happen. And by the way, piracy existed before the internet was widely available. People that used to pirate that way will go back to that, and the younger people will learn how to do so. So even this masterpiece of stupidity solves nothing. Giving true value to art will.
Last edited by Drithien; 2012-11-27 at 07:34 AM.
Ding ding ding. We don't really get many choices here. Where I live, most of internet access comes from Cox. Some areas might be able to get AT&T's U-Verse (which is exactly what Cox provides, but more expensive.)
In both cases, both companies are colossal corporations who don't really need to be worried about pissing people off because... lol, where else are they gonna go for broadband?
It's like this pretty much everywhere. One time, I wanted to switch my TV cable provider which is also my ISP. The guy from this new company I wanted to go to, said up front that they won't be "trespassing" on the other company's area. So yeah, you bet your ass companies divide their market if they can, so they don't go into actual competition. Such understandings are illegal, obviously, but good luck proving anything just because some guy told you on the phone.
Fair? No. Legal? Yes.
Fat white CEO's want to make more money, and the law does not prevent them from doing so. Nothing new, move along people.
"In life, I was raised to hate the undead. Trained to destroy them. When I became Forsaken, I hated myself most of all. But now I see it is the Alliance that fosters this malice. The human kingdoms shun their former brothers and sisters because we remind them what's lurking beneath the facade of flesh. It's time to end their cycle of hatred. The Alliance deserves to fall." - Lilian Voss
To be fair. I think HuffPost is a great interactive online articles. It contains articles about just about everything. They don't make up they're own truths as Fox News goes out their way to make other person look bad. For example Obama was quoting John Mc Cain on something he said. Fox News only aired what Obama quoted. Not the words "I quote"
They are worlds apart. HuffPost while it may enhance the liberal view and they're message may be Pro Left wing. I never known them to flat out make out twisted truths and lie about situations in the way Fox News has done. On topic I think it's very disturbing and a little scary that "Motion Picture of America" which is Hollywood and "Music People" have teamed up under the screen to go out of they're way to make sure you're not "stealing from the internet"
Whenever you modify the internet. Even with the best intentions. It loses it's freedom. That's why the bills aimed at doing just that were overwhelmingly defeated. Even some corporations that supported the bill backed away after the public's anger. What's to say they don't create an internet group to monitar people on the internet.
I respectfully disagree. No doubt HuffPost has a Liberal Agenda or Pro Left Wing. The major differences from the two is that Fox News flats out lies and makes up information that is accepted as the normal. While HuffPost might be biased they don't flat out tell you lies.
If you need more proof and you can Google this.
People who watch no news, know more then people who watch Fox News
http://www.inquisitr.com/241677/stud...o-news-at-all/
To me at least they're is a major difference. One of them flat out makes up false information and other one tells the truth.
“The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/241677/stud...VXYyZiRuK9P.99
The daily show is a comedy news network and they are more honest then Fox News and they are Liberal leaning.
Last edited by FusedMass; 2012-11-27 at 03:37 PM.
HuffPost is like Jon Stewart. Of course they have a trasnparent Liberal Bias but they don't hide it and call themselves "Fair and Balanced" For example when the Hurrcaine Sandy rolled in MSNBC, CNN etc all cove raged on the storm. Fox was the only people who didn't clearly pushing they're agenda. What I'm saying is HuffPost is up front with you about their bias and being biased doesn't stop them from reporting on the truth of things.
Generally when Fox reports something it's more politically motivated then actual news with truth. It's like an arm of the republican party inviting guests as props to come on they're show while they bash the liberal agenda but this is getting off topic. ISP is the main issue. It's the internet. I recall when I was younger loading my screen using dial up waiting hours to get online.
When I did the internet was slow but I was massively impressed by it. A decade later. The UN wants to have some control over the internet. People who pay for high speed access shouldn't have to get warnings directly from their ISP. Who they pay very well to give them services on the off chance to catch people who pirates. Isn't this just a big waste of time to monitor people online who might download movies. Did we really have go through all this.
How about they first focus on providing us their media content (games, music, movies etc) conveniently and more cheaply, with greater availability and accompanying services?
Have you seen Steam? Good prices, easy and convenient. Makes money.
Take a look at stuff like movies/music... overpriced discs, god knows where to get them, often not available where you live/won't be available for a ridiculous amount of time, etc.
What I mean is, corporations complain about piracy, yet they don't have to offer something that confronts it on its level.
While I can understand this for pirating music and and maybe somewhat for movies, what bothers me is nowadays, a demo of a game is a lot more rare than say, 10-15 years ago. I remember buying a PC (gaming) magazine and getting a CD/DVD filled with game demo's on it.
As some people have stated, some download a game to try it, and if they like it will go ahead and purchase the game. However at the same time, as also has been said, some people will download the game, realise they don't like it and not purchase it (and this is where the gaming companies then lose out on a potential sale). It's like some game companies want you to take a leap of faith and buy their game without being given a chance to test it beforehand. Sure, you can try making a judgement call by looking at reviews, but nothing compares to trying out the game for yourself. One could argue a demo still doesn't give you a full idea of the game, but in my opinion it gives you a lot better idea than a (biased) review or gameplay video. And when it comes to PC games, the game might not run as well on your setup as it shows on said review and gameplay videos.
Now of course some companies still do make demo's, like EA Sports do with the FIFA and NFL franchise, but I get the general impression it's a lot more rare than in the past. Take Assassin's Creed 3 for example (if I'm wrong here, there are countless other examples, so take this with a grain of salt). As far as I'm aware there has never been a demo of any Assassin's Creed title. How do I know if I'll like this game and if it is worth the €40-70 it costs depending on what platform you buy it, without trying it out first? Sure, I can check out reviews and gameplay video's, but as I said, they're not the same as trying it out for yourself. It's a rather annoying feeling when you hand over a sum of cash for a game that you then end up not liking, and in some cases you can't return/resell as you've used a key in order to play the game.
As for movies, I'm kind of 50/50. The only thing you can judge a movie on is trailers (which obviously don't show you too much or it would spoil the movie) and again, reviews. However going to the cinema is getting more and more expensive (an example, the cinema closest to me charges €9,60 for a normal movie and €11,60 for a 3D movie) and a game gives you many more hours of enjoyment than a movie does, if you like it that is.
Music, however, there is no excuse really. There are means to listen to a part of a song, or even the whole song, legally. There are also nowadays cheaper solutions, like Spotify, letting you listen to as much music as you want, legally, for a set price (less than the cost of an album). Of course not all record labels have a contract with such services, but really, there are enough means to 'preview' music off an album before buying it.
That said, I do however agree that you pay to use your ISP's service, and if you're using it for illegal means they should have every right to take action to stop you doing it.
Last edited by Nerph-; 2012-11-27 at 05:49 PM.
MSNBC also pounced on Obama's poor debate performance. Some people are under the strong illusion that MSNBC wasn't freaking out when Obama debated Mitt in the first one. They were. Chris Matthews nearly had a heart attack shouting about how about Obama did. Huff Post even high lighted that. The difference from that networks and rest. When Mitt did poorly or lost ground they didn't jump on him right away. This is off topic though.
Everything we get from the internet, music, games and etc is at stake. If we allow people to change that even for best intentions then what started off as "free" would be limited to those controlling the governments to bend these things to what they want. For example. Bill Gates had an idea to fight spam years ago. He requested they charge a few penny's every time we send an email or figure out a puzzle.
If we let him have his way we'd be pre charging our cards for every email we sent out. Virtually almost everything we want do on the internet is our choice. People collect information off our cookies and try to get us to buy things. The system largely works because it leaves things undisturbed. To just cut that and say "We're going to monitor and Modify" then why stop at slowing the internet.
If that SOPA bill did pass. Then people in HollyWood could complain directly to people to yank they're content off instead of going through slow route.